The case recognizing the accomplice relationship of tax evasion

Inasmuch as the husband, who had been the chairperson of each board of directors of the Group Busan subsidiary, died in collusion with the representative director of each company and relevant executives and employees, and the denial actually succeeds to his status as the representative of the surviving family after the husband's death, and is treated as the president or a non-official report on the management status of each company and became aware of the fact that the act of tax evasion was committed in each company by receiving a report on the management status of each company, and further, it is recognized that the act of tax evasion was partially distributed as a result of the processing of the act of tax evasion, such as receiving money from a tax official and receiving advice from a tax official, etc. and then receiving a share of the profit therefrom, the relationship between the representative director, officers and employees of each company that committed the act of tax evasion and the co-offenders of the act of tax evasion, even

Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 9 of

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 75 High Court Decision 917, 76 Highly 61 (Consolidated)

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months and by a fine of twenty five thousand won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 500,000 into one day.

One hundred and eighty days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: according to the statement in the court of the court below by the witness non-indicted 1 and the statement in the expert statement prepared by the appraiser non-indicted 1, the court below calculated the combination of the raw materials required for the omission in sales by the co-defendant 1 corporation (hereinafter the co-defendant 1 corporation of the court below) in the court below and deducted the amount equivalent to 3 percent of the reduced amount from the cost by deducting the amount equivalent to 15 percent of the reduced amount from the cost. As to the omission in sales by the co-defendant 2 corporation of the court below (hereinafter the co-defendant 2 corporation of the court below) of the court below, the amount of the charged tax reduced by 3 percent of the reduced amount in cost calculation, which was reduced by the reduced amount of 3 percent of the reduced amount in cost calculation. However, this is based on the grounds that this is not recognized for the tax calculation, and the court below's decision that rejected each statement in the witness non-indicted 2 and 3's wind court of fact-finding.

The gist of the judgment of the court below is that the defendant's act of tax evasion is not sufficient to recognize the facts constituting the crime of this case, and the witness's statements are not reliable in violation of the empirical rule, and it can be found that the defendant did not commit the crime of this case. The court below acknowledged the facts constituting the crime of this case against the defendant without any evidence, and the second violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the act of tax evasion) continues to exist customarily from the time when the defendant's husband's act of tax evasion was committed, and the profits distributed to the defendant were not generated from the act of tax evasion, because it is hard to view that the defendant's act of tax evasion cannot be seen as being committed by the defendant's act of tax evasion under the above provision of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for the purpose of 7 years since the defendant's act of tax evasion cannot be seen as being committed by the defendant's act of tax evasion under the provision of the above 9-year punishment for the defendant's act of tax evasion. It is clear that the defendant, other than the defendant's educational background or career.

2. (A) First of all, we examine the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal, the first and second points of appeal, which are the grounds for appeal of the defense counsel, and the misconception of facts.

Comprehensively taking into account the relevant evidence duly admitted by the court below and the statements made by co-defendants 1, 6, 2, 7, and 8 in the trial court prior to remand and the representative director of the court below's co-defendants 1, 6, 7, and 8 in the trial court prior to remand, the dismissal of public prosecution in the trial court prior to remand among the criminal facts stated in the court below's judgment against the defendant is sentenced to the judgment of the court below prior to remand, and there is no error of misconception of the facts contrary to the rules of evidence in the judgment below as to the corporate tax on the amount of income and revenue in the taxable period from December 1, 1972 to November 30, 1973 as to the Co-defendant 2 of the court below's final judgment's total amount of 3,814,388 won, corporate tax on the amount of income and revenue in the taxable period's business year from November 30, 1973.

In addition, since the defendant did not participate in all the business management of the company and there is no further public invitation to commit the act of tax evasion of this case, the relationship between the defendant and his accomplice is denied. As such, regarding whether the defendant was a public invitation to commit the act of tax evasion of this case, the defendant's act of tax evasion of this case's executive officers and employees and co-defendants 4, 3, 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17, the defendant's act of tax evasion of this case's executive officers and employees and co-defendants of the court below and non-indicted 1, 2, 2, and 8 of the court below's co-defendants of the court below prior to remand, and the defendant's act of tax evasion of this case's executive officers and employees was committed by the defendant's co-defendants of the court below's non-indicted 9, 18, and 13, the defendant's act of tax evasion of this case's executive officers and co-indicted 4, respectively.

(B) From the second point of the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel, it seems that the defendant, among the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel, withdrawn from the public contest relationship before the balance of tax evasion offenses, and at least took part in the tax evasion offenses without status, after examining detailed records on the assertion that the defendant took part in the tax evasion offenses, the defendant left the public contest relationship as above before the commencement or transfer of the corporate tax evasion act against the joint defendant 1 corporation in the court below's 1973 or the crime of tax evasion was committed on March 7, 1974 (the part of the act of tax evasion and related documents was committed before July 1973). Thus, the court below's decision that recognized the defendant as a principal offender of the tax evasion act and applied the above measures is just and just, and since the crime under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established or the punishment is aggravated, in light of the purport of each Act.

(C) Therefore, it is without merit to discuss the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the prosecutor and the defense counsel.

3. ex officio spons:

(A) During the period from December 1, 1972 to December 31, 1974, the judgment of the court below acknowledged that the defendant evaded corporate tax, corporate tax, corporate business tax, and goods tax that the co-defendant 1, 2, 8, 7, and 6 are liable for tax payment, in collusion with the officers and employees of the representative director-related officers of each company. In general, it is the crime falling under Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9(1)1 and 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and Article 9(1)1 and 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Since the taxes that the defendant conspired to evade are liable for tax payment are different among five companies, separate tax evasions are established for each of the above five companies that are liable for tax payment (the above subject of tax evasion is each taxpayer and the defendant is processed) and the corporate tax and corporate tax are established for each of the above corporations' business years.

In addition, since the goods tax should be paid by the end of the following month, the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is committed by one by each time for the payment period. However, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who commits a crime under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Act No. 3280, Dec. 18, 1980) shall be subject to aggravated punishment when the amount of evaded tax exceeds 50 million won per year or 20 million won per year. Thus, Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the crime of evasion under Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be deemed to be established by one by each business year if the sum of evaded tax amounts exceeds 50 million won per year or exceeds 20 million won per year.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which imposed the whole tax evasion act of this case as an all-inclusive one crime shall be deemed to have erred in applying the law.

(B) In addition, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations has expired two years prior to November 21, 1975, for the crime of evading customs duties imposed on Nonindicted Company 19, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds that Article 18 of the Punishment of Specific Crimes Act (amended by Act No. 1063, Sep. 10, 1973; 2,49,120 won was imposed on an amount equivalent to KRW 8,30,00 among the storage cells for automobiles from September 1, 1973; 3,000,000 won was imposed on an increase of the statutory penalty from Article 17 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Nov. 21, 1975; 1,000,000 won) since the act of evading customs duties from Article 18 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the act of evading customs duties from Article 18 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc.

(C) Articles 8(1) and 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Act No. 2550, Feb. 24, 1973) have been applied to each of the so-called criminal defendants at the time of original adjudication. The aforementioned Act was amended by Act No. 3280, Dec. 18, 1980, after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below. When there is a change in the punishment due to the amendment or repeal of the Acts and subordinate statutes between the time of act and the time of trial, the most severe law shall be applied. When there is a change in the punishment between the two parties under Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, the light law shall be applied to the name of the crime prescribed by the Acts applicable to the change in the punishment. Thus, Article 8(1) and 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be applied to the second sentence of the Act applicable to the case where there is a change in the punishment, since it is more than the time of act.

However, according to the provisions of Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) and the provisions of the Addenda to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1820, Dec. 18, 1980) (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1060, Dec. 18, 1980), where a case is pending before a court as a crime under Articles 6 and 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders does not require any accusation even after

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is eventually a result of the change of punishment in accordance with the amended law, and it cannot be said that such errors affect the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot avoid reversal even in this point, since it did not affect the judgment.

4. Therefore, a party member shall, without making a decision on the remaining grounds for appeal, reverse the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant (excluding the part of the judgment dismissing a public prosecution in the exchange transmission court, which became final and conclusive) pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and shall be again decided as follows through pleading.

The Defendant was the president of the board of directors of Co-Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 2, Co-Defendant 2, Co-Defendant 8, and Non-Party 4, who was the major shareholder, and was the deceased on December 27, 1970, and was involved in the management of each of the above companies as a director who was a major shareholder of the above company from January 1, 1971.

1. The co-defendants with Nonindicted 22, 9, and 26 of the lower judgment to evade national taxes imposed on Defendant 1 Co-Defendant 1;

For the period from January 1, 1973 to June 30 of the same year, 367,00 won is equivalent to the above company's product (name omitted) in the office, etc. of the above company located in Gwangju Special Metropolitan City, and 367,047,00 won is not via the sales ledger of the above company's product (name omitted), the sales agent of the above company directly received orders from the local contact offices of the non-indicted 6 company without going through the sales agent of the above company's local contact offices, and sold products by sending and receiving them, and the facts are not entered in the tax-related book, as well as the income amount of the above sales amount as shown in the separate sheet 1, 313,136,106 (the cost calculation for the omitted sales was impossible, but the sales cost was 53,910,894 won as stated in the separate sheet, but the time limit for payment for the above company's corporate tax was omitted and 254,254 of the above government's income amount.

2. From December 1, 1973 to November 30, 1974, the joint defendants 3, 13, 27, and 28 of the court below and the joint defendants 2 of the court below conspired to evade national taxes imposed on the above company's products. The above company's office, etc., located in Seongdong-dong 281, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, sold kalking soundness and Myeongdogs using abnormal transaction methods as indicated in the separate tax base return, omission of tax base and calculation table 2 of the above company. The above facts are not opened to the above company's tax-related account book, and the documents such as the certificate prior to shipment are incinerated. Meanwhile, when the tax base is reported by unlawful means such as omitting the tax base by item of the above company and omitting the entry in the separate tax base and calculation table 2 of the tax base, and thereby the corporate tax amount,407,302 won, corporate tax amount, corporate tax amount of 250,2594,560

3. Aimed to evade national taxes imposed on Nonindicted 19, 11, etc. and Nonindicted Company 8;

With respect to the manufacture and sale of storage batteries, etc., which are products of the above company, at the office of the non-indicted 8, 1973, ranging from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974, the time limit for payment of the above items of taxation has expired by using unlawful methods, such as omission of product sales, omission of entry, provisional park appropriation, processing expenses disbursement, etc., as shown in the attached Table 3 of the tax base return and calculation of the amount of tax, as shown in the attached Table 3 of the tax base return, omission of return, items, tax base by each taxable period, item, omission of tax base of the above company, or after the government decision.

(A) Corporate tax amount of KRW 1,579,640 for the taxable period from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1973; KRW 1,367,926 for corporate business; and KRW 14,352,930 for corporate tax; and KRW 17,300,496 for the taxable period from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 197

(B) From January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974, corporate tax of KRW 60,186,88, corporate tax of KRW 1,510,904, corporate business tax of KRW 8,168,128, total amount of KRW 69,865,920 is evaded.

As to each judgment of the defendant

1. Each statement that conforms to the relevant part of the judgment of each representative director of the court below and the court below prior to the remanding of the case, the co-defendants of the court below prior to the remanding of the case, and the non-indicted 24, the non-indicted 6, the co-defendant 2, the non-indicted 7,

1. A statement that conforms to the relevant part of the judgment of the court below among the statements of non-indicted 2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 15, 26, 31, 25, 23, 27, 28, 18, 13, 29, 30, 16, 12, 17, 32, 33, 14, and 1 of the witness at the court of the court below.

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect as to the Defendants of the prosecutor, Nonindicted 9, 10, 11, and 15, which corresponds to the relevant part of the judgment.

1. Each written statement made by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 22, 9, 23, 31, 3, 18, 13, 21, 20, and 30, which conforms to the facts in the judgment.

1. In each of the statements drawn up by Nonindicted 2, 23, 9, 15, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 13, 11, 10, 29, and 18, it shall conform to the relevant parts of the statements set out in the holding.

1. Each written expert opinion prepared by Nonindicted Party 1 to the lower court’s expert witness.

1. Each entry in a copy of the investigation documents (Evidence 15 through 18, subparagraphs 25, and 25) of each case of suspicion of tax offence committed by Nonindicted Company 6, Joint Defendant 2, Nonindicted Company 7, Nonindicted Company 8, and Nonindicted Company 24

1. In full view of the descriptions in one sheet, one sheet of reference file, and one copy of each sheet of application (Evidence No. 11 to No. 13) that was seized, there is sufficient proof.

Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Act No. 250 of Feb. 24, 197), Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Act No. 2714 of Dec. 24, 197), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 8 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 8 (1) 1 and 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10 of Dec. 18, 1980), Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 3280 of Dec. 31, 1980), Article 8 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)